When asked if he would meet with Raul Castro of Cuba, McCain turned his answer into a criticism of Obama. “I would not in any way, as Senator Obama wants to do, legitimize an individual who has been responsible for education, repression, political prisons and a gulag,” McCain said. "I don't know if [Obama] is naïve or not, I know he is inexperienced.”

I just groaned when during the debate he said he would return if Al Qaeda turned up in Iraq, I knew that was an RNC campaign companion piece to the I'll meet with any dictator and talk. He just doesn't seem to know this area at all and tries to bluff or that's how he comes off. Add as Chair he hasn't held a security meeting because he is too busy running for President that had to frighten the American People who were unaware. Its a problem for sure.

...are going to follow a foreign policy that comes close to what is really needed to curtail the American empire. So I can't say I'm thrilled to be nitpicking the details of doctrines forged in the middle of the containing of communism when what we need is a post-Cold War, post-9/11 foreign policy that upends 65-110 years (depending on how you count) of imperialism (and its concomitant, militarism).

We have relations with communist China, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, and f'n Sudan, but we can't have them with Cuba? It's ridiculous. And while there are still a lot of Cuban-Americans in South Florida who won't vote for Obama or Clinton just because they are Democrats doesn't mean that it's "incompetent" to suggest talking to the leaders of Cuba (or Iran or elsewhere). We talked with the Soviet Union, it should be recalled, and had an embassy there even as we built thousands of warheads for use against each other.

you really want the President of the United States to fly to North Korea and without any preconditions, sit down with Kim Jong-Il, who from all accounts could be mentally ill, and have a conversation with him?

I don't think Obama meant in his initial answer that he would personally meet with all those leaders because I don't think he really thought it through. Clinton saw an opening at that debate and hit him on it. Then he dug into his original position.

I used to represent the United States in working level meetings with foreign countries (allies, admittedly). Neither Obama nor Clinton is going to meet with Iran or N. Korea without a lot of work being done in advance, which means pre-conditions. It's stupid not to because the last thing Obama wants is to meet with Iran and for Iran to tell him to his face to go screw himself. Iran won't take that risk either. And Obama knows this because in talking about Cuba at one of the recent debates Obama claimed to have no precondition requirement and then set conditions:

"I would meet without preconditions, although Senator Clinton is right that there has to be preparation. It is very important for us to make sure that there was an agenda and on that agenda was human
rights, releasing of political prisoners, opening up the press. And that preparation might take some time.

But I do think that it is important for the United States not just to talk to its friends but also to talk to its enemies," he said. That's a line Obama often uses in decribing how he would approach diplomacy.

There is simply no difference between this position and the Clinton position since she has also said the U.S. must talk to its enemies, it is only a personal meeting with the President that she would set pre-conditions on. And as a practical matter so would Obama even if he won't come out and call them that.

This is one of the stupidest foreign policy debates EVER. Obama doesn't think about the issue of meeting prep or the potential of using meetings with the U.S. President as a negotiating tool and instead focuses on the arguably more important point for the U.S. to talk to enemies as well as allies at a debate. Clinton hits him on it to score debate points. That was all fine and well. Then, IIRC, Clinton hits him again the next day, which was lame, but whatever. Then instead of admitting he'd misspoke or clarifying what he meant, Obama dug in. Moreover, he started to try to blur Clinton's position by saying that she wouldn't talk to our enemies, when in fact her administration would do so and that has always been her position. So when Clinton said "I would negotiate with Iran" to fight back against this blur, , Obama claimed a flip-flop because she used the pronoun "I". I wish I were joking. Because when we're fighting over fricking pronouns you know we've hit on a stupid, meaningless argument and somehow I doubt when Obama promises "I" will do something he always means that he personally will do it.

Anyway, from what I can tell, both Obama and Clinton have basically the same position on talking to Iran, Cuba, N. Korea. The only thing about all of this that is at all interesting to me was Obama's decision to dig in instead of admitting his initial misstep and that's mostly because he appears to have done the same thing with UHC. But all in all, this entire argument has been a total waste of time for both candidates.

If he's president, I hope you're right, that what he said about Diplomacy during the election was just a process of him holding his ground for the sake of the election, and he and his cabinet will know that some pre-conditions actually do make sense.

So when I conclude that Obama will use the rhetoric of JFK without implementing those policies, I feel better about concluding that he will also use rhetoric about NAFTA that will not be reflected in actual policy.

is to put it in the context of continental diplomacy. We have always been the odd man out in the continent wrt Cuba. Dropping the embargo could be leveraged to jumpstart a serious comprehensive approach to the region. We have given Chavez a lot of material to use against us. The long running war on drugs has had a lot of undesirable consequences. Even the late William Buckley understood that. It's time to pursue a new Alliance for Progress.

Neither Clinton nor Obama have offered a compelling vision on Continental diplomacy. I have slightly higher hopes for Clinton on this area. Obama's pronouncements so far have struck me as somewhat idealistic and naive (and likely to be exploited by McCain).

is a statement saying Chavez must stop. That is actually discouraging (though probably wise politically). If war breaks out between Colombia, Ecuador, and Venezuela, the US will intervene on Colombia's behalf. I hope that doesn't happen. The way to counter Chavez id with a new approach to Cuba, drug enforcement, and the region as a whole.

Anyway, from what I can tell, both Obama and Clinton have basically the same position on talking to Iran, Cuba, N. Korea. The only thing about all of this that is at all interesting to me was Obama's decision to dig in instead of admitting his initial misstep and that's mostly because he appears to have done the same thing with UHC. But all in all, this entire argument has been a total waste of time for both candidates.

The sheer hypocrisy of saying some despots are good is beyond me. The Saudi's have so much of our blood and other blood on their hands and the Chinese leaders actions are reprehensible. I think this issue is a debater's point that fails the laugh test. (When an idea is so transparently hypocritical, like Paris Hilton calling for a Meritocrisy, that people cannot help laughing, an idea fails the laugh test.) I have no idea why Senator Clinton chose this issue, when she knows as President, and she will win the nomination, she will welcome all these tyrants and dictators the way every president has, and does, and will.

"He hasn't claimed that he's been in a position to have to answer the phone at three o'clock in the morning in a crisis situation. That's the difference between the two of them. Hillary Clinton hasn't had to answer the phone at three o'clock in the morning, and yet she attacked Barack Obama."

then she she says...

The question is, when that phone call is received for each of them for the first time, who's going to make the right judgment, who's going to make the right decision? On the critical foreign policy issues of the day, whether it was the decision to go war in Iraq, or the decision to give president bush the benefit of the doubt to beat the drums of war on Iran, Hillary Clinton has made the same wrong judgments as John McCain and President Bush.

it was amazingly foolish. I would go so far as to say downright stupid. And I stand by my earlier question: if we are to believe that Obama has such good judgment, then why the boneheaded deal with Rezko?

And don't throw the Iran vote into this because, as has been the case with his oversight committee that has done no oversight, Obama was too busy campaigning to cast the vote.

Rezko is just an application of Clinton's Rules to Obama. Same with this clip. The rule is: "If I can get away with it, I'll use it." McCain will get away with it unless we can find a simple way to contest it, and right now the only answer is to find a portion of that clip that explains what REALLY was meant, and make sure that clip is shorter than 3 seconds.

Mr. Obama, campaign officials said, has spent about $10 million on television advertising in Texas since early February; Mrs. Clinton has spent just less than $5 million. Mr. Obama has spent about $5.3 million for television advertising in Ohio, compared with just under $3 million for Mrs. Clinton, the officials said.

It looks to me like that was as of 2/28 and so may not include those 2 minute closing ads that he bought in Texas. I've read estimates that when it's all said and done, he probably outspent her 3 or 4 to 1 in those states. It's unclear if that will include the money the unions and others poured into them on his behalf.

That is why the Obama campaign is pushing so hard for her to drop out, so she can go home and enjoy having no hope. Because, you know, they are not at all nervous that she may actually be able to win this thing.

When I am sure I have won I just sit back and enjoy myself, I don't bother trying to get the other side to end the race.

is now about how good someone is with a video editing tool and YouTube updates then we might as well just vote people based on the artistic merit of their campaigns.

8 second YouTube clips are utterly meaningless.

The RedState guys went gaga because of some anonymous YouTube clip in which Obama apparently said that he plans to cut fissile material production and they assumed that he meant civilian fissile material. They ignored that the comment was about nuclear proliferation.

It's about saying a dumb thing and then whining because people don't include the full context. John Kerry's statement about voting for it before he voted against it is the most obvious example. You had Obama on the morning news saying that he's not ready and then you had his advisor on TV hours later also saying he's not ready. I assure you that I understand the context 100%, but they chose a really dumb way to phrase that talking point. It's bad politics.

You weren't around in 2004, were you, when Karl Rove made anti-Kerry ads -- taken out of context -- during Kerry's own town meeting, where Kerry stated, "I was before the Iraq War before I was against it," (not exact quote, but you get the drift.) This quote was all it took and was the beginning of the flip-flopper mantra.

Campaigns have video editing tools. Campaigns DO THIS splicing ALL THE TIME.

Obama needs to sharpen things up quite a bit if he thinks he's going to win against the Republican machine. This kind of blunder is going to cost him an election.

I bet if you had a post with Hillary raising $55 million dollars in one month, you would not have three negative statements about her in the same post.
Oh, that's right, there is NOTHING negative to write about Hillary. I forgot for just one minute.

What did independent thinker say that was insulting? That you guys wouldn't have several negative posts about Hillary in a thread about Hillary raising a ton of cash or that you guys never criticize her?

With all this money and favorable coverage why has he failed to end the race? Every time he seems to come close something happens. I am not saying its his fault, it really may be that the democratic electorate is not willing to let either one have this.

...spent a lot of his own money. Obama's money is coming mostly from motivated small donors, one third of whom go on to participate in some other way in his campaign.

Granted, he didn't win Ohio and narrowly lost the pop vote in Texas, but he was down somewhere around 15-20 points in both those states 2 weeks ago. He made up a lot of ground. And he did so in the face of what was probably the worst media week for him in the whole campaign.

Unfortunately for Clinton and her new "vetting" strategy, 50+ million dollars a month over a six week period will buy an awful lot of "counter-vetting" ads.

...is still substantially smaller than his, and there are only 10-12 states remaining, of which he will win at least a few, and probably most of them.
She could wind up being the nominee while having won only about one third of the contests.

...you know well that, first, McCain is in no position to take the high ground vis a vis integrity on public financing, considering his "creative" use of it as collateral for a loan, and his current failure to abide by FEC regulations by going over the legal limits that the opt-in has subjected him to.
Second, the language Obama used was not a strict commitment to take public financing, but a commitment to sit down with McCain and find a way to make it work. Obviously, given both the nature of Obama's current financing(90% small donors giving about 100 bucks on average), and the rumored 250 million dollar 527 campaign being planned to attack the Dem nominee, it should be perfectly understandable why any candidate in Obama's position would be hesitant to lock himself into a situation where he might not have the resources to fight a swiftboating, nor the resources to compete in all 50 states.

who's paying attention to what is being said, as opposed to what McCain (and probably the media) will be saying is being said? You know the difference. The edited / clipped youtube clip is just the beginning.

Obama needs to make sure he vets his statements so he (or his subordinates) doesn't need to keep explaining them. I realize that they are being taken out of context or being misread, but the fact is ANY opportunity will be taken. Obama rules won't work from here on out.

The critical quote is this, "A group of uncommitted 'superdelegates' were ready to make a show of support for Obama BY TRYING TO PRESURE CLINTON TO GIVE UP, said Tim Roemer, a former congressman who's rounding up backers for Obama. Now, after her wins in Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island, MANY WILL STILL BACK OBAMA without calling on Clinton to quit, he said."

They are not holding off endorsements. They are just not going to pressure her to give up....

than the energy of the post, I guess, but the fact is that some SD's have been swayed from their support based on the events of the past week. They haven't given up on it, but they are having second thoughts about Hillary's non-viability as a candidate, looks like.

He lost in Texas and Ohio and Rhode Island because those are all HRC states. Just like she could've spent 50 mil in GA and it wouldn't have made a difference. And if he keeps losing he won't be the nominee so you won't have to worry about it.
What you should be happy about is that she beat him by a good margin in Ohio. She needs to keep that up if she wants to be the nominee.

Texas was definitely up for grabs and he just didn't pull it off. Which means something. Also there is nothing that says Ohio was out of his reach, there was no "solid Hillary base." If he had made a compelling argument I think he could have won.

Was behind in double digits in both states. He closed the gap in Texas, less so in Ohio. I don't think (I may be wrong) she's been in a similar position and come back to win. Was it possible for him to win? Yes. Were the states up for grabs? No.

Is not impartial, and has never professed to be. Both candidates are represented, albeit one tepidly. As annoying as it site has gotten lately (fanclubbing), I believe it is muuuuuuch better that the alternatives, which get really nasty.

Think progress, Hullablaoo, and C&L have stayed much the same, though.

this is not a blog that welcomes drive-by "you guys are such haters!" comments.

I personally think the ability of the Obama campaign to keep from leaking is more impressive than the fundraising number. I happen to believe it was a major blunder not to release the number before Tuesday.

looks bad either way. he has too much money and still loses. he's been touting his fundraising prowess for weeks and weeks, and we saw on super tues and super 2 that that doesn't necessarily translate into votes.

And the identity politics of this race have been pretty strong, since the policy differences aren't too big.

You are correct, Mark Schmitt, apologies.

My perception is, he's been a great campaigner, and couldn't have gotten to where he is at, if he hadn't done a phenomenal job campaigning, and organizing his deputies to campaign. You waw the article in Rolling Stone? This speaks to that - The Machinery of Hope.

Not to mention, the 55 million February number, from over 300,000 donors.

I doubt he will get whiped out in Michigan, remember, Hillary barely beat uncommitted. Plus, anything is better than getting 0% of the delegates and 0% popular vote. Remember, Obama currently leads these categories if you give him the uncommitted vote from Michigan. I doubt he will do worse than that.

I can't give you any answers to questions they didn't ask. People who staid home because their candidate wasn't on the ballot were not listening to their candidates who were encouraging them to vote uncommitted. If the uncommitted vote is 'given' to Obama, they missed the boat.

Now, what % including Clinton supporters stayed home because they were told it wouldn't count? No one knows the answer to that either.

apparently, the good sen. has completely forgotten all the meetings held by former and current presidents, with leaders of countries we would consider less than democracies. the USSR comes quickly to mind. Red China, Saudi Arabi, etc.

in fact, using sen. mccain's "logic" would require the cessation of all communications with probably 1/3 of the countries in the world.